Electoral Administration Bill

My Lords, I am grateful. I spent quite a bit of time thinking about this amendment. I had the benefit of a conversation with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and his honourable friend Mr Heald, about this. I know that very much on the minds of the noble Lord and his colleague was the fact that, when one is asking people to perform a voluntary function, they tend to be people who take on voluntary functions in local communities, and one wishes to recognise that they do so in a voluntary capacity. Being part of a political party and dealing with its money is a critical part of our democracy and of our vibrant communities. The noble Lord and I also talked about the need to ensure that we do not deter people unnecessarily from coming forward. I balanced that by saying that we must be absolutely clear in what we say to people about what is and is not acceptable behaviour. This is the moment in all my arguments when I recognise that the principals on the Front Benches I am talking to—maybe with the exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, I do not know—are eminent lawyers, and I am not. So the difference between reasonableness and recklessness in legal terms is lost on me. Let me put that on the record immediately. I will think about this again, because I understand the principle behind the proposal, of not wishing to deter and wanting to be reasonable about the way we treat people. What I am not clear about is whether we have already achieved that in new Section 71L. The advice I have is that it is quite reasonable to talk about ““reasonableness””. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, talked about someone who might have made a transaction with a bank that is later taken over and becomes unauthorised, but they did not know. I would have thought any court would have said, ““Okay, you didn’t know””. If they had been sent information from the bank that said it had been taken over and was now unauthorised, we would expect them to know, because the regime that we have set up is exactly the same as that for donations. They have to understand it for donations, so I do not see why they cannot do so for loans. I will take this away, as I have indicated, but it is on the basis that we may have got the balance about right. The regime replicates that for donations, and we understand and appreciate the valuable role people play in political parties, both at national and local level. I should point out that Mr Dromey was the honorary treasurer, not the registered treasurer. That apparently marks a difference in status. It is important that we make sure that the test is a proper one, and that accidentally it is not a way that people can escape from their responsibilities. I therefore want to look again at that matter, with a view to trying to achieve that balance. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to think about it one more time. However, I do not commit myself to returning with anything different, rather that I may try to persuade both noble Lords that we have achieved the right balance.